About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
was it, 1982 or 1983, back in the 1980's, tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and made adjustments to social security that saved the program. that's my point. sometimes you need to adjust and change to save the very thing you care most about. and so tip o'neill didn't sell out the democratic party by embracing that agreement. the democrats in congress, many of them very progressive at that time who supported it, didn't work traders to the party. if we do it in a responsible way, a balanced and doesn't just gut the programs and just not all entitlement reform with no revenue, i think the base of the party and leaders and organized labor will understand. they also know the alternative is doing nothing, with bad damage to jobs and the economy. and ultimately insolvency of these programs themselves, or. b, the right wing of the republicans are coming in and taking over because we have done nothing to solve the problem and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack. he's our first phone call for the senator. republican. go ahead. caller: mr. bayh, one question
's a kind of big confusion here because the classic republican economic vision and the ronald reagan vision and even the dynamic republican revolution vision that you were a part of was really centering on small business and the idea that small business is the idea that creates 75% of the country and it's this dynamic force. people fail, people succeed. things happen and small business is the engine of creation. and there was big business and small business. >> and of course the secret, something all republicans opp e oppose, someone uses regulation as a weapon against other businesses and gets things pass that had are helpful to their specific corporation but harmful to competitors whereas small businesses experience the ownerousness of regulation without a lot of the benefits. this is always a problem that the republican party became affiliated or associated. i think in some large senses wrongly with big business sense. helpful to the obama administration. signed on to obama care. what happened with two of the biggest corporations in the country. too broad of a stroke. we're against regu
been pro-immigration. ronald reagan was solidly for immigration reform, and if you go to youtube and google reagan-mondale debate, reagan making the case not for legalization, but for amnesty. using that word. now, republicans are pro-immigration, but they have been afraid for the past six years of anti-immigration lobby with an incredible political machine, and anybody who says anything constructive on immigration will be labeled pro-amnesty, and certainly, some talk show hosts, and now, i think this election cycle dramatically changed that. i can, at least, number half a dozen talk shows that said, you know what? my position evolved, and now i'm for immigration reform, but that is good because it will give cover to a lot of republicans who have avoided the issue or want to deal with the issue to actually do it so we have to reclaim the issue, and we can do it because immigration and being for immigration reform is actually the conservative position. restrictionists at the end is part of the nationalist, protectionist paradigm, and if we are the party of the family, if we ar
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3